Ellison and the Soul of the DNC
“Anybody from the Democratic side of the fence.. whose terrified of the possibility of President Trump better vote, better get active, better get involved… and we’d better be ready for the fact that he might be leading the republican ticket.” Keith Ellison July 2015
“HAHAHAHA! I know you don’t believe that! HAHAHAHA!” George Stephanopoulos, ABC host, in response to Ellison
In 2016 the technocrats in the Democratic party got their candidate, Hillary held on to a diminishing lead against her more idealistic opponent Bernie Sanders in the primary, then lost her tremendous early lead to upstart candidate Donald Trump in the general. In the wake of the 2016 disaster the Democrats are sorting out who they want to be the head of their national convention, and this search will say much about the soul of the party. The idealists have thrown their support behind Keith Ellison. Despite the endorsements of populists like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren ellison’s nomination has been met with resistance from establishment Democrats. He is being criticized as too left wing, and the establishment is even preemptively denouncing his connections to Louis Farrakhan, echos of the right wing backlash against Obama’s connections to Jeremiah Wright. Right now the party is suffering a schism, the idealists and the technocrats are at odds with one another, and whosoever takes the party helm will speak volumes about the Democratic Party.
The last election was rough for the Democrats. Hillary blew a substantial early lead against her presidential opponent Trump, and the results were at once so appalling and so unexpected to many Democrats that mass protests broke out on election night. Hillary was the candidate the technocrats wanted. She was an establishment politician with a long and well known pedigree, and she was well liked by the people with the purse strings such as the executives at Goldman Sachs who notoriously paid her a $600,000 speaking fee. Unfortunately for the Democrats, she also had some of the worst unfavorability numbers of anyone in the party. Much of people’s distaste for Hillary is because she is seen as inauthentic and corrupt, and in a nation that fears corrupt politicians above all else this is a damning indictment. This perception of corruption and lack of authenticity cuts to the core of what imperils the Democratic Party today. If the Democrats want to win they need someone from outside the party machinery. If Trump’s success in the Republican Party is any indication, the condemnation of the party heads and their aligned news media is the smart place to go looking for a political victory.
Enter Keith Ellison. He is being supported by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein almost exclusively on policy grounds. Despite the ease in using Ellison as a vehicle for identity politics, the Ellison camp is sticking to the issues. This is a far cry from the losing strategy rolled out this November. Ellison is vice chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, and the co-chair of the Democratic Progressive Caucus. This is a man whose dedication to his ideals is without question, and in an environment in which that level of trust is at a premium, this could be a powerful tool. Ellison even predicted how the lack of Democratic enthusiasm could lead to a Trump presidency before the primaries had ended.
Unfortunately Senator Ellison also has some of his own baggage. Critics in both parties are quick to point out that Ellison has publicly supported Louis Farrakhan. This criticism appears to echo the old right wing cries regarding Jeremiah Wright. This is at its core an identity politics play, and identity politics failed miserably in 08, 12, and 16. I don’t expect those politics to be any more successful now than they were over the last series of elections they lost. The next criticism is that Ellison is too liberal, and the New York Times even said, “that elevating Mr. Ellison would amount to handing the party to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Mrs. Clinton’s primary race opponent, and his liberal followers,“ and it says that as if it’s a bad thing. Chuck Schumer’s prediction that “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia,” proved to be disastrously wrong. So perhaps, giving the Democratic party to its, “liberal followers,” won’t be so bad in regards to electoral outcomes.
On the other hand, the party technocrats are poised to support Howard Dean as party chair. To be fair to the party technocrats, Howard Dean is as good as a technocrat gets. He designed the fifty state strategy that was instrumental in capturing governorships, senate and house seats, and even the presidency in 2008. He was among the first party figures to understand the power of the internet in organizing and mobilizing voters. Much of Obama’s success in both the general election against McCain and in party nominations against Hillary was a direct result of adopting Dean’s framework for internet outreach. On top of his technical bonafides Dean has left wing policy bonafides that far surpass most of the current democratic party. Dean was a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war, something that cost him dearly in his own presidential bid in 2004, and deceased Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone once called him, “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” These are all positive qualities, all of which make him worthy of returning to the chair of the DNC. Dean also brings some serious negatives to the table.
Dean is, whether by his own intent or not, an establishment figure. He’s an employee at big time lobbying firm, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and as mentioned before, he is a former head of the DNC. Much of the reason for Hillary’s staggeringly low likability numbers is that she is an insider. Appointing a lobbyist (Dean) and consummate insider as a party head seems like a disastrous move in a country that pushed the new president into the office amid cries of, “drain the swamp!” Furthermore, Dean is a lobbyist, you can buy his services if you need them so desperately, and Ellison as party chair does not mean that the Dems suddenly lose access to Dean’s strategic acumen.
Whether or not Ellison becomes the party chair, the Democratic establishment has some serious soul searching to do. Since the Carter administration appointed a fed chairman who said, “The standard of living for the average American has to decline,” the Democrats have openly been on the side of technocracy, and for their alliance they have gained nothing. Republicans hold the Senate, the House, nearly every state legislature, a strong majority of governorships, and the White House. They hold these seats of power despite presiding over all three of the major economic crises in the post-depression era, the largest embassy bombing, and the largest terrorist attack in the history of the republic. Selecting Ellison would represent a strong departure from the now four decades old technocracy that has governed the DNC into increasing irrelevance. It will represent an attempt to elevate ideas above more traditional measures of fitness. It would represent a repudiation of the attempt to pander to the right and an affirmation of progressive principals. Perhaps, if the Democratic Party was more concerned with being a distinct ideological entity rather than siphoning up two or three votes in suburban Philadelphia they’d be a bit more popular.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia commons and photographer Lorie Shaull.